A Kinist Commentary on the Ten Commandments: The Third Word

THE THIRD WORD

Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain; for the Lord will not hold him guiltless that taketh His name in vain.

The implications of this law are vast. Among them, the Catechism includes “perjury; all sinful cursings, oaths, vows, and lots; . . . misapplying of God’s decrees and providences; . . . abusing [the Word], the creatures, or anything contained under the name of God, to charms, or sinful lusts and practices; the maligning, scorning, reviling, or any wise opposing of God’s truth, grace, and ways; making profession of religion in hypocrisy, or for sinister ends,” etc.1

In America the oath of office has traditionally been conducted with one hand on the Bible accompanied by the words, “I do hereby solemnly swear to uphold and defend the Constitution from all enemies foreign and domestic.” This oath is violated radically by virtually all who swear it today: the soldier consents, in complete contradiction to his oath, to take part in an unconstitutional military complex following unconstitutional and ungodly orders dispensed by an unconstitutional foreign government which epitomizes the very enemies he swore to defend against; and the jurist who, by participation in the positivist paradigm now taken for granted by the entire legal system and tacit consent to the foreign occupation, does no less. In fact, be they soldiers or Supreme Court justices, virtually everyone who swears this oath now violates it by their initial consent to the oath itself, because the institutions into which the foresworn are inducted are completely at odds with the oath itself. Swearing the oath in this context renders it a perjurious mockery, doubly grave for its ubiquity. Ours now is, top to bottom, a system based upon violation of the third commandment. Defending the status quo in these matters only compounds the sin.

Granted, the taboo connected to this subject has grown strong even amongst Christians because of the invocation of God’s Word in the oath, and secondarily, that of the Constitution also, which they understand for a thoroughly covenantal constraint on government. But the reflexive deference to these good words as a ‘charm’ (also forbidden by question #113) to hallow a system which is, in reality, their antithesis (the Leviathan anti-Christ state) is akin to Israel’s fetishization of the Ark of the Covenant, or the Song of Lamech (Gen. 4). The turning of true revelation into a charm to hallow false premises, or to pursue that which is untrue and evil, is the common thread between everything from Talmudism to Wicca. Such word-magic, invoking some aspect of true revelation as a source of power by which to conjure into existence things contrary to that revelation, is part and parcel of witchcraft.

While taboo is an inescapable aspect of all worldviews, the taboos surrounding the oath of office and American militarism are of the same species which is pervasive in regard to all social matters today – political correctness. It is devotion to transparent lies in the name of truth.

We usually know political correctness by its more conspicuous forms, in matters race- and gender-oriented. These appertain to the penological categories introduced to Western society by cultural Marxism – racism and sexism. And these categories have, hydra-like, multi-cephalized into so many subcategories that I will not treat them here. Suffice it to say that the simultaneous insistence that race is imaginary and that we therefore must celebrate, congratulate, or support interracial marriage is, by way of self-contradiction, to knowingly embrace lies as virtue. Those who do so, generally take these principles as the highest virtues. As bad as it may be when unbelievers seem to universally reason this way, it is that much worse that claimants of Christ have been turning in recent years to cite the uni-genesis of the human species as rendering all the nationalities and races (which are incidentally presupposed everywhere in text) as heretical fictions; because it sets revelation at odds with itself in pursuit of their imagined higher good – the vindication of Babel. Citing critical theory in place of biblical penology and declaring it the self-same as biblical law is to append Marxism to the very name of God. Alienism pursues the most notorious evils listed in Scripture while claiming to do so in the name of God. This is the epitome – in the words of the catechism – of “abusing it . . . to charms, . . . or any wise opposing of God’s truth . . . ; making profession of religion . . . for sinister ends,” and therefore, it is a most grievous violation of the third law. The Alienist’s invocation of God and aspects of His word as a pretext toward Marxian-Babelite goals is blasphemy and treason against the Truth itself.

Footnotes

Ehud Would is a Conservative Presbyterian of Scandian-Germano-Celtic background and a refugee from the reconquista state of Southern California, who having recently followed the Northwest Imperative, resettled his family in Coeur d’Alene, Idaho where he pursues writing, illustration, medical administration, and presides as an elected official.

Newsletter

Receive F&H Updates By Email:

Email address:

Leave this field empty if you're human:

Faith & Heritage is a consortium of Christian writers from a traditionalist perspective. F&H features a diverse range of opinions among its writers, and any particular opinion expressed is not necessarily indicative of universal agreement among F&H admins or writers.

The superhero genre was one of the last quasi-traditional genres of American pop culture. Batman, Superman, and the other assorted heroes and villains literally came out of the early twentieth-century[…]

About

Remember the days of old; consider the years of many generations; ask your father, and he will show you, your elders, and they will tell you. When the Most High gave to the nations their inheritance, when he divided mankind, he fixed the borders of the peoples according to the number of the sons of God. - Deuteronomy 32:7-8